[Bug 682544] Review request: gargoyle - multi-format interactive fiction interpreter

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=682544

Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer at ktdreyer.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |182235(FE-Legal)

--- Comment #10 from Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer at ktdreyer.com> 2011-06-08 10:07:49 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Jason, it's the upstream gargoyle project that does the bundling. And it's not
> bundling libraries, but it's distributing its own versions of the executables
> for each interpreter, modified to use the Gargoyle display library. Indeed,
> that is the only library contained in this package.

Fedora's policy is to work with upstream to get changes pushed to the
respective project owners. So, if the Gargoyle project has modified another
underlying project, they need to push those changes back to the project's
upstream owner.

> So even if one of the bundled interpreters was present on a system, gargoyle
> would be unable to take advantage of that, even in principle.

This sounds like they have made some changes to the bundled interpreters that
need to go upstream into those interpreters.

> Changing this would be a major rearchitecting of the upstream project.

You have the freedom to apply for an exception from FESCo, but they will want
more details regarding why Fedora's policy would not apply here. Please
carefully read over
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries . (Not to be a
pain on this, but if we don't ask about this, someone else will.)


> Ken, I agree that is some weird phrasing. But it is not self-contradictory,
> merely redundant. So I don't see it as a problem.
> 
> If it is a problem, how could this be addressed? Would I need to obtain a
> statement from Andrew Plotkin clarifying his intention?

The best thing imho would be if Andrew could just re-license his package under
something that is already approved by Fedora, eg MIT. His terms sound similar
to the MIT License, although Andrew is also requiring that his URL be
preserved, so I'm really not sure. I asked on legal at lists.fp.o in case Andrew
is unwilling to re-license.
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-June/001674.html

-----

In the course of my review I found two technical things that should be fixed in
the package:

 $ rpmlint gargoyle-2010.1-3.fc14.src.rpm
gargoyle.src: W: strange-permission generate-tarball.sh 0775L
gargoyle.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gargoyle-2010.1.tar.bz2
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Please fix the permissions on generate-tarball.sh (755 should be ok)

 $ rpmlint gargoyle-debuginfo-2010.1-3.fc14.i686.rpm
gargoyle-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/gargoyle-2010.1/terps/nitfol/globals.c
 [snip]
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 81 errors, 0 warnings.

The 81 warnings on the debuginfo package are all for the incorrect FSF address.
Would you mind filing bug(s) upstream on this?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.